re: Hacksaw Ridge. First time view.

Go back and read my original post.
Please don't try and twist my words.
Please present some valid points against my original post.
I do not diagreee this man was a hero.
Who would sign up for the ARMED forces and not be willing to use a weapon.
Who would allow a man not willing to fight to protect and rescue his own men.
Could there have been less fatalities if he would have had a weapon?
This is considering cinema aside, real life.

Damn. I came here for a legit discussion. I never post on this board.
You guys are as bad as the women in white that stood up and ran off after Trumps address to congress.

They allowed him to join due to pure technicalities. They tried all they can to get him out.
Let's look at it as a personal view point.
If you had a child and he was in war. Would you want someone that is caring for his life to be fitted and ready for the risk that comes with saving your son?
Or would you be more comfortable with the guy that is not as prepared to look after your child's life?
This is before he saved 75 lives.

Were you in WWII?
Do you have any proof of this?
Anyone on the front lines did not just run through the front lines dodging bullets by pure luck.
You can do that with a M1 or pistol in your hand.
You always must be prepared.
You do not put someone's life in your hands intentionally without being prepared for the the risk.
Would a police men handle a bank robbery without self defense?
If your child was in the bank, would you rather the cop with a weapon try and help or the one without one?
Yeah. Shut up

ETA:
They tried all they can to get him out.
Let's look at it as a personal view point.
If you had a child and he was in war. Would you want someone that is caring for his life to be fitted and ready for the risk that comes with saving your son?
Or would you be more comfortable with the guy that is not as prepared to look after your child's life?

I've been drinking since 6 and just finished this bull shite movie. Sorry

quote:

---

Do you have any proof of this?

---

Yeah, the movie you just watched you drunk MFer.

Uh...yeah, I do. It's called a BA in History with a primary focus on U.S. military history. Combat medics were given the option of carrying firearms but most rarely went into combat with one. Some would carry sidearms in the event they had to protect their patients. But that was rarely needed, especially in Europe, as Germans would generally hold their fire when medics were treating wounded soldiers.

quote:

---

Germans would generally hold their fire when medics were treating wounded soldier

---

Since you are a expert in military history can you explain why they told him to take is med badge off his sleeve? I am pretty sure they said this made him more of a target

ETA: I know in the movie this was not vs Germans. Although you are certain you know what you are speaking about about, but the movie contradicts your BA in history.

You said it was "rarely needed". Especially in Europe. I am not understanding. Is it just Germans that do not shoot medics? Or in general do enemies not shoot medics? Or is is rare, but only in Germany does this happen?

quote:

---

I do respect the things this man has done, but why enlist into a position that requires certain duties if you are not willing to fulfill them. Who in their right mind would allow a medic to look after their men if he refuses to carry a weapon for self defense to take care of his own people?

---

Well, they ALL pretty much said exactly what you did and tried everything they could to kick him out (including trial for dishonorable court martial) ...but the law as written allowed it to happen.

He explained profusely "why" he wanted to serve.

He was also prone to violence as a younger man and was savagely beaten by his own father. He was once just a step away from becoming a pathological killer himself. His "faith" became his only handle on sanity.

So... ...the guys "with" guns retreated when a slaughter ensued, the Japanese had annihilated all previous troops trying to capture Okinawa. One gun would have made very little difference considering the scale (2,500 US soldiers were killed at "Hacksaw").

The dude stayed behind, alone, and literally saved 75 otherwise dead men, many legless and armless, by treating them in darkness and lowering each one over a 400' bluff... right under the "enemy's nose". Had he a weapon, a single shot would have foiled the entire rescue.

I'd read about Desmond Doss's heroics years ago. Bottom line, it happened. I do know many US war Vets agree he is one of the greatest military heroes that ever lived. Certainly the most unique. But I do get what you are saying...